Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JuJube (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 23 March 2007 (→Current requests for protection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.

Shortcuts WP:RFPP WP:RFP WP:RPP Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection) After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism. Skip to table of contents requests to raise protection lower protection requested edits (purge) Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level Request protection Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection Request a specific edit to a protected page Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here Request edit

Archives

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Current requests for protection

Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Video game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Frequent juvenile vandalism from shifting IP. JuJube 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. This is urgent. High levels of anonymous vandalism. The article had been protected for quite a while but was unprotected a few hours ago. Please please please someone quickly reprotect this article. It's becoming frustrating having to revert so many people. UberCryxic 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Continued anonymous IP vandalism constituting the majority of edits and reverts over the last couple weeks. Page was semi-protected for a one-week period about a month ago, and vandalism was light for a week after it lifted, but has since resumed in force. Strongly suggest a 1 week semi-protect, and maybe a permanent semi-protect. croll 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism, for 1 week. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Religious significance of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-Protect - Recent attacks from anons in similar IP ranges coupled with a hot-topic article leads me to conclude that this needs Semi-Protection. --Valley2city 16:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. – Steel 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Great Global Warming Swindle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protect - Edit warring by two editors that is POV-pushing and ignoring talk-page discussion and removing legitimate tags placed in good faith on grounds that "there is no consensus for the tags". Please revert to 1400 Mar 23 and protect until consensus can be achieved. -- TedFrank 16:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The irony of one of the primary edit-warriors requesting protection is duly noted. Raymond Arritt 16:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer protection request, or to take arms against a sea of troubles

And by opposing end them. That is the question. ~ UBeR 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined. I don't think protection will achieve much. 3RRers can be blocked. – Steel 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected Long time edit war, best to force discussion. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vince McMahon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)‎

Semi-protect - Frequent vandalism occuring recently by different IP addresses, ranging from adding nonsense to even blanking the page. --Raphaelmak 15:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. -- FayssalF - 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Slavery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect - Appalling amount of vandalism from multiple anon. IP's. I was hoping the level of vandalism would go down after Black History Month ended, but it's actually gotten worse. Cgingold 15:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. -- FayssalF - 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottsdale Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection Full protection: Vandalism, students from this school can be used as chat room. LegoAxiom1007 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. -- zzuuzz 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:30DayCalendarStartingOnSaturday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: High-visible template, unused template that needs to be protected. LegoAxiom1007 14:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined This is not a high risk template. -- zzuuzz 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:No-swear-words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: High-visible template, created template, but not protected yet. LegoAxiom1007 14:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined. The userbox is only transcluded on two pages, so it does not qualify for high-use template protection. -Amarkov moo! 14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Disambig-entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: High-visible template, I created this template because I want people not to vandalise. LegoAxiom1007 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined This is not a high risk template. -- zzuuzz 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Psiphon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection Full protection: Dispute, Appears to be an edit war between several users (or a couple of users plus socks). Recommend protection for a while to get consensus on talk page. RJASE1 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not appropriate at this time, this is a content dispute between registered users and anonymous users, with the intention to lock out the anonymous users. Also Full protection in this particular case will give the appearance of impropriety as the registered user attempting to shut out alternative views advocates Misplaced Pages specifically in its article and on its web page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.48.60 (talk • contribs)

The person who appended the unsigned comment to my report is one of the persons involved in the edit-warring. RJASE1 15:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Somerset College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect Students from this college and rival college(s) are using the article as a chat room and for trading insults. It's a low-profile article so the nonsense goes on for a while before being detected, which makes reverting difficult and risks stomping on constructive edits made in the interim. Raymond Arritt 13:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Tim Sylvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

full protection +expiry 4 days, Full protection: Dispute, to much dispute and vandilism. Takeda 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected due to revert warring. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Esoteric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Full protection. Template previously of this name was moved to Template:Intricate (and protected) a couple of days ago, meaning that this is now an unprotected redirect. Since virtually all uses of the template still come through this redirect, it should be protected for the same reason as the template itself – Qxz 08:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

already protected back in December . – Riana 08:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and then it was moved, taking the protection with it. It's protected at the moment only because it's transcluded in a cascade-protected page, it should be protected directly – Qxz 09:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, done. – Riana 10:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Already protected.. Michaelas10 11:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Zarbon (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: Dispute, try not to let Zarbon add an {{unblock}} template, okay? LegoAxiom1007 04:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined This template is only linked to three article and will probably be put up for tfd soon anyway. John Reaves (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Tapewormfeast (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect.High level of vandalism.Connor 11:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined – There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. John Reaves (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. High level of IP vandalism, and continued vandalism. Rico 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week. After 1 week the page will be automatically unprotected. John Reaves (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Postco2 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection Repeted annon vandals also User_talk:Postco2. Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Postcvo2 is an indef blocked user. Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 15:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Page deleted. John Reaves (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protect. Persistent vandalism by multiple ip addresses. --KZ 05:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the page will be automatically unprotected. John Reaves (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection - Disruption again, this user has unlimited socks, you can't ban him he will come back, I suggest protect so he will leave. Artaxiad 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected to deal with vandalism from socks. John Reaves (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for unprotection

• WP:RFUP
• WP:RFPU

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

• To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
• Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
• Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
• If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Brock Lesnar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please unprotect. It has been left protected long enough and it has not even been talked over, an admin just blocked it. It does not have true information on 3 sections.

• Comment Please do not unprotect. This is the fourth request in as many days (all the others were denied) made in bad faith by a sockpuppet of the community banned vandal Verdict. Bmg916 13:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not unprotected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exetel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unprotect. It has been quite some time since this was protected for edit warring. It is time to unprotect this. Extranet 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Un-protected. It's been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Power rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotect. Fully protected redirect; target is not protected, redirect is not transcluded by or linked to by any pages, and there is no history of vandalism – Qxz 09:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Un-protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Donation addresses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unprotect or possibly full protect Misplaced Pages:Fundraising. This is a protected redirect to an unprotected page (Misplaced Pages:Fundraising) which is in itself a soft redirect to foundation:Fundraising. It is listed in Misplaced Pages:List of indefinitely protected pages with the comment "It should not be possible to falsify donation addresses." If this is an acceptable argument for protection, then the redirect's target (Misplaced Pages:Fundraising) should be protected too; if not, then since its target page is unprotected, it should also be unprotected – Qxz 07:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Un-protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Protection does not have consensus and appears to be a conflict of interest (in the general sense; I am not speaking of WP:COI, nor do I allege any bad faith at all). As well as its talk page, please see Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Can we freeze everything while we work on this? and the poll referred to below under WP:ATT. The only supporters of the protections appear to be Crum375 who made the protections, and Blueboar and ≈ jossi ≈. NB: Material was deleted from that page without consensus just before the protection, which is what the issue is for me. Even Blueboar who reverted the restoration of the material (by User:Centrx and supported by me, User:DGG and User:Thoric) appears to support the restoration, but simply wants to hold off on it, for reasons that do not actually make sense in the context of the WP:ATT dispute at all, and the restoration was not otherwise opposed by anyone. PS: I'm not irritated with anyone, I just think an error has been made. — SMcCandlish ツ 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is no emminent editwarring problem at WP:RS. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Renewed request for unprotection. The {{Protected}} was just removed from this page, with a note that the page is not protected because of disputes but for "stability", which is not a cognizable reason under WP:PROT. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Template added back. Page not unprotected though, due to edit warring. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Francis Escudero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article was RFP'ed because of a persistent POV editor. Now that quite a long time has passed, I think it's about time to test the waters (so to speak) and let other people edit this article to make the suggested (and long-overdue) changed to this article. Besides, with the continuing developments of the 2007 Philippine general elections, this article will benefit from the latest developments. --- Tito Pao 07:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected John Reaves (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

• WP:RFED

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

• Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
• Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
• Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, not here.
• If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
• This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

Misplaced Pages:Attribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Put {{Protected}} on it for as long as the protection lasts. I'm filing this here because the protecting admin is part of the dispute at the page in question, so I would prefer to bring this to neutral parties instead of generate any controversy at WP:ATT with new {{Editprotected}} requests at that page. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gracias. — SMcCandlish ツ 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Req. for restoration of this template. Someone deleted it. Either this template should be there or there is not WP:PROT-recognized reason for the protection and it should be lifted. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Majorly _{(o rly?)} 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-request. Another party to the dispute has removed the protected tag, replaced it with its invisible cousin {{protected2}} and has added a note which is conspicuously missing the "protection is not an endorsement of the current revision" language. Supposedly this is a compromise, but it looks exactly like the page did when SMcCandlish made the last re-request. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Google (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All I'm gonna do is put a screenshot of Google, but the page is protected. Replay7 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected and it's still to soon to un-protect since the wave of vandalism will likely continue immediately after un-protection. Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an un-protection request. It's a request for me to be able to edit the page even though it's protected. Replay7 21:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to make a request when it's only semi-protected. John Reaves (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In my case, I do. I don't have an old enough account to edit semi-protected articles. Replay7 22:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then wait until it gets old enough or request it on the talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a change to generate an unobtrusive warning if an AfD debate is created without a category. Short debate, instructions, and link to replacement code on talk page. —dgies_c 21:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fulfilled/denied requests

Template:No-swear-words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: High-visible template, no vandalism in this template, but want to RfP because just in case for vandalism. LegoAxiom1007 04:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Declined. We don't preventively fully protect things unless they're high-risk templates. This is not a high-risk template. Coredesat 07:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Isuzu Axiom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: High-visible template, full protection just in case in vandalism. LegoAxiom1007 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Declined Coredesat 07:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: High-visible template, users won't ever mess up this template. LegoAxiom1007 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Declined. Not a high-risk template, and appears to be one you created. Coredesat 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Disambig-entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

full protection Full protection: High-visible template, no one will mess up this first template I created. LegoAxiom1007 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Declined, we don't protect things just because they're the first of their kind that you've created. --Coredesat 07:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sandburg High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection - Constant vandalism by anonomous/non-registered users; the only edits to actually stay in the article are made by registered users. Sox23 03:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for one week. --Coredesat 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Mario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Repeated vandalism by nonregistered users. The most recent 100 changes are mostly vandalism followed by a revert. Celain 02:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for two weeks. --Coredesat 07:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Amir Taheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am requesting unprotection because, two users, including the one requesting protection, have been reverting repeatedly, and summarily deleting materials which do not comport with their POV. And now the blocked version of the article are locked into their POV version. For this reason, unprotecting the entry, and allowing the several users who wish to challege their POV do so, might force them to start a discussion of the take page so they can understand that their unilateral and summary deletions of material are themselves advancing another POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.34.139 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not unprotected Obviously there is still no consensus among the editors. John Reaves (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In re request (which copied text from the protect request) for unprotection: WP:AN3 report on three user/IPs (4th unsigned above) applies also. — Athænara ✉ 01:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ötzi the Iceman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi-protection – This article was semi-protected for a week ending 23 March 2007; the minute protection was lifted it was the subject of vandalism by users with IP addresses 202.59.29.82 and 203.222.139.106. May I request that the article be semi-protected again for a longer period, and these IP addresses be blocked? Thanks. Cheers, Jacklee 04:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined A couple of users vandalizing an article are better dealt with revert+warnings+WP:AIV. The main vandal's been blocked already anyway.--Húsönd 05:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Miriam_Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full-Protect I respectfully request full protection of this article as unwarranted edit warring has broken out here. This is a biography of a living person. This article was editorally stable and factually complete for about a year. Then a editor came along and sought to find new sources for most of the information in the article. Which was reasonable and not hard to do,and has been done. In the last day some more registered editors have came along and nominated various pictures for speedy deletion. In particular the war intensified when I was able to find reliable sources for the information in the bulk of the article. Please protect this article as it is as of now. --Hfarmer 02:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: this editor is currently revert-warring with another editor on the talk page. They need to resolve their differences on the talk page. I will defer to another admin on this as I'm attempting mediation - Alison 04:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I've taken a look at the article and do not see a malicious edit war. The bulk of the recent edits are made by Hfarmer and Jokestress, someone whom Hfarmer says she can and is working with, the only edits beyond that have been a few reverted IPs and Longhair nominating pictures for speedy deletion, something which has nothing to do with the article itself. --Golbez 04:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Attribution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting unprotection (as I explain at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Request unprotection of page) because the admin who protected the page is currently involved in an ongoing, unresolved content dispute on the page, and because if the page is to be protected, then it should first have a tag at the top stating that there is a decision process being followed to determine the status of the page -- not a statement that the page is policy, as the page currently says but for which there is no consensus; see Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution/Poll. --Coppertwig 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reasonable issues that started the revert war do not yet seem to have been resolved. It is also too soon to assume that the editors have lost enough interest. Consider adding {{Editprotected}} to the page's talk page to request small modifications, or making a significant edit request on this page for large edits that are agreed upon. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to agree with Coppertwig on this one. As with RS above, this protection is a conflict of interest. I understand that some editors in the dispute have concerns about the page remaining editable, but these concerns have not been adquately explained and accepted to support a unilaterial page protection like this, much less of all related pages such as WP:V and WP:NOR, and especially not WP:RS which is not even part of that dispute (but a different dispute, namely over whether to merge RS and WP:ATTFAQ, another issue on which there is no consensus — SMcCandlish ツ 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

There's an edit war going on, it was going to get locked at some point. Anyway, I'll leave it to someone else to decide. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 19:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a historical status, not a current one. A big discussion is happening at the talk page of the poll, and I see that actual content issues about WP:ATT are being discussed in a mostly collegial manner at its talk page. Two days ago it was a fight, but a whole lot has changed since then. Maybe it would turn right back into an edit war, but maybe it won't, esp. if the talk page is notified that the protection will be restored (by an admin who is not actually part of the debate this time!) if editwarring resumes. Just an idea. — SMcCandlish ツ 19:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Even the proponents of the protection says it is only intended to last for "a day or two" and well, it seems to have already been at least one day. — SMcCandlish ツ 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that unlike virtually every other page protection made to prevent a revert or edit war, the page protection made to WP:ATT is conspicuously missing the {{pageprotected}} notice, which makes it clear that the current revision of a page is not necessarily one which reflects consensus. As such the current page would appear to the casual reader to reflect consensus and be reasonably undisputed, both of which are questionable assertions at best. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed this change for you down at #Current requests for significant edits to a protected page. 22:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit was made. At least that part is resolved. — SMcCandlish ツ 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Not unprotected Edit wars are obviously imminent, there's no consensus for change on the Talk: page, and the policy pages need to be stable so they can be assessed properly by participants in the straw poll. Jayjg 20:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're also a party to the disputes, and other involved admins such as User:Centrx disagree with you:

There was no consensus to protect it in the first place and your protection of these pages is not in accordance with wiki philosophy or Misplaced Pages:Protection policy. Misplaced Pages, including its policy pages, is an open wiki, and page protection is not a pre-emptive measure. —Centrx→talk • 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the evidence at Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Request unprotection of page (source of above quote) is of civil, rational discussion. You are a direct party to the interpersonal disputes elsewhere on the page, so I think that your {{RFPP|nu}} here is a conflict of interest (as above in the general sense of that term) and must be disregarded. I am asking for admins who are not involved in the WP:ATT fights to review the protection, which was put into place by a party to the dispute and was just now retained by a party to the dispute. I do believe that the protection effectively constitutes a pre-emptive measure to silence some particular users that the 3 (4 now, I think) protection supporters disagree with (though I offer no opinion at all as to the actual motivation, only the effect). I don't like editwarring either, but protection to shut people up is really just another form of edit warring. Again, I am not accusing anyone of abusing admin authority or egaging in any form of vandalism or other bad faith; I think simply that some emotions have run high and have led to some errors in judgement, no more. — SMcCandlish ツ 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How am I a party to the dispute? I saw the issue, commented there, and turned it down here. Jayjg 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just look for yourself in the talk page: Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#question about application of Misplaced Pages:Attribution, Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Dispute tag, Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Synthesis section, Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#It was done upside down, Misplaced Pages talk:Attribution#Request unprotection of page; you're deeply involved. Note that I did not say you were part of the edit warring (I'd have to go study the policy page history to know either way, and don't really care; the instituter of the protection was involved in the editwarring, however), and reiterate that I alleged no bad faith on your part or anyone else's. — SMcCandlish ツ 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The {{Protected}} was just removed from this page, with a note that the page is not protected because of disputes but for "stability", which is not a cognizable reason under WP:PROT. Either {{Protected}} should be restored, which tacitly recognizes that there is a dispute, or the protection should be lifted because there isn't a dispute. — SMcCandlish ツ 04:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

semi-protect. Repeated, daily vandalism from nonregistered and new users. Also, no significant content changes seem to be required / underway. Semper discipulus 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism.¤~Persian Poet Gal 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Full protection. Users are still blanking this page. Anthony Rupert 01:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism, no need for full protect. The vandalism seems to be mostly coming from anons and new user accounts, this should help a bit.¤~Persian Poet Gal 02:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Polish Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe a compromise has been reached on TALK:List of Polish Jews, so a page unprotect would be nice. LeszekB 23:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Un-protected. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alaska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Semi for ~1 week, most edits of the recent 50 were either vandalisms from multiple IPs or reversions. --Sigma 7 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Cbrown1023 talk 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:HalfShadow (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

Semi-protec As before; under heavy attack from multi-ip sock user HalfShadow 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 3 days. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)